Texas BIG game Hunting (Urgent for TX Convention, but just a theory)Submitted by amartin315 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 01:19
I saw the thread on presidential electors below, but I felt this was worth another try. Sorry if this isn't well received due to "similar content" status but I have looked up the bylaws concerning presidential electors from Texas. (Electoral College.) I hope this information is not too late. If it is, maybe look into California. I have no clue whats happening there.
Texas is a big deal in the electoral college. They have 38 electoral votes. 7 presidential elections have been decided by fewer than 38 electoral votes, including 2 out of the last 3. In a close election, and I suspect this one will be, we can force a vote in the House of Representatives with those numbers. It would be the second time in history, and the first for President and not VP if Ive got it right. Who knows what happens? Even if Ron doesn't win there, maybe we get a positive effect from the event itself? Its hard to calculate something that unprecedented. If one of the two (obama/romney) win it would be Romney due to the Republican controlled house, and the republicans wouldn't be quite as enraged as they would be otherwise.
What is import about Texas is that it is a big one that is expected to go republican so that being an elector candidate would matter.
Check my research, then I have more comments in between and below the bars.
At the Biennial State Convention in presidential election years, the delegates from each Congressional District shall nominate one (1) Presidential Elector and such nomination shall be presented to the National Nominations Committee; additionally, the National Nominations Committee shall select additional nominees to bring to total number of nominees to the number allowed by law. Each such nominee for Presidential Elector, prior to the report of the National Nominations Committee, shall file with the Chairman of the National Nominations Committee an affidavit in writing as to his commitment to vote for the Republican Party’s nominees for President and Vice President. The report of the National Nominations Committee shall include only nominees who have so filed such affidavit. The report of the National Nominations Committee must include the nominees from the Congressional District who have so filed affidavits. The Convention shall then elect the Presidential Electors.
At the Biennial State Convention in presidential election years, there shall also be a permanent National Nominations Committee composed of one (1) delegate from each Congressional District, to be elected by caucus of the delegates in each such district, plus the chairman thereof, to be appointed by the State Chairman. The Chairman of the permanent National Nominations Committee shall convene the meeting of the committee two (2) hours after the start of the Congressional Caucus with a quorum being present. This committee shall report to the Convention nominations for National Delegates and Alternates, Presidential Electors, and National Committeeman and National Committeewoman, which nominations have previously been made in accordance with Rule Nos. 39 and 40, and sections 6 and 7 of Rule No. 38.
So I do believe it is possible to get our people in the right place. Here's the kicker.
Although presidential electors are generally expected to support the candidates in whose name they are chosen, 26 states plus the District of Columbia go one step further and attempt to bind their electors40 by one of several means: (1) requiring an oath or pledge or requiring the elector to cast a vote for the candidates of the political party he or she represents, all under penalty of law;41 (2) requiring a pledge or affirmation of support, without any penalty of law;42 (3) directing electors to support the winning ticket;43 and (4) directing electors to vote for the candidates of the party they represent.44 In addition, some state political parties require in their rules that candidates for elector make an affirmation or pledge to support the party nominees.
In its 1952 decision Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court held that it does not violate the Constitution for a political party, exercising state-delegated authority, to require candidates for the office of elector to pledge to support the presidential and vice presidential nominees of the party’s national convention.45 Specifically, the Court found that excluding a candidate for elector because he or she refuses to pledge support for the party’s nominees is a legitimate method of securing party candidates who are pledged to that party’s philosophy and leadership. According to the Court, such exclusion is a valid exercise of a state’s right under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides for appointment of electors in such manner as the state legislature chooses.46 In addition, the Court determined, state imposition of such pledge requirements does not violate the 12th Amendment,47 nor does it deny equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.48
In Ray v. Blair, however, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of state laws that bind electors, and left unsettled the question of whether elector pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be constitutionally enforceable.
Indeed, in the view of many commentators, based on the text of the Constitution, its structure, and history, statutes binding electors and the pledges that electors make are likely to be constitutionally unenforceable. That is, according to some commentators, electors remain free agents who may vote for any candidate they choose.
So the constitutionality of voting faithless as an elector when you have signed a pledge/affidavit or been bound by state law has not been determined. Some commentators believe the pledges/bindings are unenforceable.
I'll say this in conclusion: If someone becomes an elector and votes his conscience in the example of Texas, I would love it, but if he voted in good faith I wouldn't hold it against him. It would take some serious cajones to make a vote that changes an election on constitutionally ambiguous grounds.